Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 August 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
August 1
[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete - though I believe that our policy does not forbid us from using this image (it is not being used simply to show us what the subject looks like), there is a clear consensus for delete. --B (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Salk stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 (notify | contribs).
- Delete: non-free stamps may not be used to illustrate the subject per WP:NFC#Images #3 even though the uploader has changed the rationale to claim it is not being used for that purpose. There is no mention of the stamp in the prose so it is obviously being used for decoration and even if it was mentioned in the text the image itself would not be necessary to inform the reader of its existence and they would not fail to understand the stamp was issued to honour the subject. The fair use rationale also fails because WP:NFCC#8 states; Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Retention of the image requires some critical commentary about the stamp itself over and above the fact that it was issued, what it shows or production details. ww2censor (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It would seem that adding a phrase like the following by the Postal Service would make the issue allowable:"POSTAL SERVICE TO ISSUE NEW STAMPS HONORING DR. JONAS SALK AND DR. ALBERT SABIN". Apparently, since the stamp image was used in sections about "celebrations" and recognition awards, it didn't seem necessary to say what the image was as it was self-evident.
But I also think the question of its use here, while obviously not "necessary" to understanding the article, is worth considering since the Postal Service has issued thousands of commemorative stamps, like this one, over the years. They include famous persons, places, events, etc. and could have a similar benefit in articles that likewise discussed "commemoration" activities about the subject of the article. I can't think of a situation where use of a commemorative stamp would have significance "over and above the fact that it was issued," as required. There seems to be a contradiction in terms, since the "fact that it was issued," and "commemorates" the subject of the article, is what makes it valuable to an article. I also can't imagine a situation where a stamp's "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic," which is the other requirement. It seems to be creating a standard of "impossibility" for allowable use which is pretty hard to overcome. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Have you considered that there may exist some images which are never usable? Stifle (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what you mean. Are you implying that a copyrighted image of a postage stamp has superior rights than other "published" images (from the web, books, magazines, etc.)? My understanding is that there is only one law of copyright in the U.S. and the "never" concept, whatever you mean by it, fits within the same law. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk)
- You've said '[i]t seems to be creating a standard of "impossibility" for allowable use'. The point I am trying to make is that this may be the intention of the non-free content policy — there is no guarantee that a particular image may be permissible. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what you mean. Are you implying that a copyrighted image of a postage stamp has superior rights than other "published" images (from the web, books, magazines, etc.)? My understanding is that there is only one law of copyright in the U.S. and the "never" concept, whatever you mean by it, fits within the same law. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk)
- Have you considered that there may exist some images which are never usable? Stifle (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This non-free image decorates the article well but in no way increases readers' understanding of the article about Mr. Salk. Stifle (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That might be true if we assume that all readers of the article actually read the article. But the for those (majority?) who read the lead only, and possibly skip around or skim the sections, an image of the subject of the article on a postage stamp in a section about awards and "ceremonies" might very well instantly "increase readers' understanding" of its/their notability, or want them to read further. And while the image itself is not "particularly unique or iconic," anyone's portrait on a postage stamp is an "event" in itself and fits the context. The Postal Service is aware that every time a stamp is used on an envelope its image is being republished - free to anyone who sees the envelope. It's their intent to widen the notability - to "commemorate" the stamp's subject by using it. And it's hard to imagine them not wanting to see it used here. BTW, the U.S. has been among the few countries that consistently issues commemorative stamps of people, events, places, and things. Simply look at 2009 alone.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Together with the TIME cover the image illustrates Salk's importance for the US public.--Hans (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The image is replaceable by the free text: "He was commemmorated by the US Postal Service with a stamp." The image itself is not particularly unique or iconic. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete strongly agree with ww2censor and ESkog. The image isn't discussed in the article, and is readily replaceable by text. There's nothing iconic about the image. It's just a depiction of Jonas Salk. We already have a free form of that in File:Jonas Salk1.jpg. There's nothing about displaying the stamp that increases reader's understanding that a commemorative stamp was issued that can not be replaced by text. The text should be modified to note that such a stamp was issued, but it doesn't need the stamp image to support that. Cut and dry case here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per Eskog. Image is replaceable. Rettetast (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ciara goodiescover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fergie forever (notify | contribs).
- Image fails WP:NFCC#3a as multiple non-free images are being used when one would suffice. Also fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article. — Σxplicit 06:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ejfetters (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clear overuse. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The second cover looks nothing like the first, so could be keepable if there was an indication of how and when it was used (and this turned out to be geographically or otherwise significant). Jheald (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Rettetast (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ciara 1,2stepcover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fergie forever (notify | contribs).
- Image fails WP:NFCC#3a as multiple non-free images are being used when one would suffice. Also fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article. — Σxplicit 06:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ejfetters (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clear overuse. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ciara ohsingle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fergie forever (notify | contribs).
- Image fails WP:NFCC#3a as multiple non-free images are being used when one would suffice. Also fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article. — Σxplicit 06:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ejfetters (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clear overuse. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Oh cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fergie forever (notify | contribs).
- Image fails WP:NFCC#3a as multiple non-free images are being used when one would suffice. Also fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article. — Σxplicit 06:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ejfetters (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clear overuse. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:MasonWyler.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SneakyTodd (notify | contribs).
- possible CV, appears to be unfree publicity image labeled as free, questionable. Orphaned as well. Ejfetters (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Questionable file, article deleted for two years, delete --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Kate Grenville cello 20081004.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Peter_Ellis (notify | contribs).
- No longer wanted on subject's page, by request of the subject, Kate Grenville; desire expressed during personal interview. Having been removed, it is now orphaned. Peter Ellis - Talk 11:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CSD#F8. FYI, the image is no longer orphaned.--Rockfang (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete exists on commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:BandS Kevin Wedding.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dallum89 (notify | contribs).
- Used for illustration only in an article about a season of a TV series (ESkog)(Talk) 14:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Borderline speedy since there is hardly any non-free rationale. Rettetast (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Used for illustration only in an article about a season of a TV series (ESkog)(Talk) 14:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious delete Nothing significant about the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Too small to be useful, web resolution so the copyright claim is questionable B (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.